On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:02:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:32:37AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:15:36PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > > > > If there are concerns over archive size, why don't we drop all static > > > .a libraries at the same time. Given that in Debian we typically > > > always link dynamically, is there a need for .a libraries in all but a > > > handful of cases? > > > > Dropping most .a libraries is something I agree with. I see no reason > > why we should have them for most of the libraries. > > As a courtesy to our users. Statically linked programs are slightly > faster (since they don't need to do PLT lookups, so they spare a jump on > every function call to a shared object). For people for whom performance > is critical, providing .a libraries is a good idea.
I agree that for some things it might be useful for have static libraries, but in most cases they're not. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
